This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Richard Brekne=20 To: Pianotech=20 Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2004 7:29 PM Subject: Re: Hamamatsu Museum of Instruments Calin.=20 I really dont see there is any physical impediment to making the = surface area of the bridge wider so that a longer segment of the string = comes in contact with the bridge anywhere along its length. Unless you = are saying that the speaking length of the string required the front = notch to be where it is, and the lack of a dogleg then forces a shorter = contact segment ? That would make sense I suppose... so then, you are = saying they did this to avoid using a dogleg in the bridge itself ?... = Ok.. :) whats the benifit of avoiding the dogleg then ? Cheers RicB That's exactly what I mean. They wanted to keep a constant bridge width, = so they shortened the segments. I can't really say if there's a benefit in avoiding doglegs, but I have = noticed that the shape of the bridge base - was a constant preoccupation = at Steinway. I have a model O where the bridge base has been undercut a = lot along its length, not just only in the treble (where almost every = manufacturer does it). It looks though like they tried to give the bridge a certain footprint = because they wanted it to touch the soundboard at particular places. = Haven't really looked into this and since I'm leaving tomorrow for a = month to Berlin, I will study my Steinway when I get back home. Calin Tantareanu ---------------------------------------------------- http://calintantareanu.tripod.com ---------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/8a/fb/7c/c8/attachment.htm ---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC